Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-06-29

Yesterday the case OF the United States agt. John
n. Oliver was argued in the Court In General Term
by District Attorney Worthington for the Govern
ment and Mr.. A. B. Duvan for the respondent. A
petition was filed for writ Of quo warranto to
show by what warrant Oliver claims to hold, use
and exercise the Office of justice OF the peace after
having been removed therefrom by the President
OF the United States on April 20 last. The re-
spondent denies his removal, and says the COM
munication OF removal was unauthOrltative, in.
sufficient and void, for the power to remove him is
vested exclusively in the Court in General Term.
The Government filed a demurrer to this answer,
and on this was the hearing.
The Government contended that 1t was not in
tended by Congress- In enacting the clause Of the
act OF 1863, incorporated section 1881, r. s. ID.
c., to take away the Presidents power OF removal
This section provides 'That justices Of the peace
may be removed by the court to be organized
under the provisions OF this act as a General
Term, &c.) 1t also claims that 1t does not take
away the power given by the President to make
removals in the act OF 1928; that the power to
remove is given in the act OF June z 1878; and II
power on the court that the section. 1851 is void,
Tor 1t attempts to impose on the court power not
OF judicial nature
partly judicial and partly executive, and not a
political Office In any sense. He quotes Chief JUS
tice Marshals opinion In the case Of United States
agt. Marbury, In which he decided that the PreSi-
dent could not remove justice appointed under
the act OF February "a, 1901, and that when the
President has made the appointment he has exer-
cised his whole power. After quoting the legisla-
tion on the subject he states that the organic act
OF February 81, 1871, transferred the authority to
ne Ts
the President is given, and then the law under
which he holds office. This enacts:
THAT the President OF the United States shall
nominate and, by and with the consent OF the
Senate, appoint fifteen justices Of the peace within
and for the District OF Columbia Their term OF
cause They shall respectively have the Jurisdic-
tion, exercise the powers and functions, and per-
form the duties as now provided by law for said
Officers respectively. Upon resignation or eXpira-
tion OF the term OF office they shall make, certify
and deliver transcripts OF any proceedings on
Their DOCKET to any party In interest or shan deli
finished business, 10 their successors in off1ce, at
their option, and account for all moneys in their
Of the peace appointed under this act his docket,
books, and papers OF office shall be delivered to
bis Immediate successor In office." Another sec
tton provides for the appointment OF cOnstables
for the District, not exceeding twenty, to hold
office for four years subject to be removed by
said court for cause, upon hearing" Another pro;
fix the amount and form Of bond for constables
and approve the same; and another gives the Pres
deeds throughout the United States, and notartes
public within the District he might deem neceS-
sary, removal at discretion"
He says this act preserves the integrity and con-
powers are related to the judiciary to be CON
trolled by the court, which had already that
power by express grant, and no such power was
given the President. He contends that this court
did not consider sections 1890, 1O31. Revised stat
utes D. c., repealed, for in the careful revision OF
its ''rule OF practice" adopted January term
1886, in which 1t was assisted by the combined
wisdom OF the"Bar Association, it provided: "Pro-
ceedingS TO remove a justice OF the peace must
be commenced by Hing and dOcketing, on the
criminal side Of the court, to be heard in the
General Term, an information by the district at
torney, IN the name OF the United States, against
the officer, setting forth the grounds or the
complaint, and supported by afI1davit OF the re-
laior or tnformer." In conclusion respondent
says: The justice OF the peace does not hold his
Office at the discretion or pleasure of any one but
for four years, subject to removal for cause. !"
His office is his property. The Constitution 9th
amendment) reads: "Nor shall any person
be deprivedof life, liberty, or property without
due process OF law" No "cauSe" Is alleged In
this executive order. The fundamental principle
OF common justice would give the respondent an
opportunity to be heard as to any alleged "cause"
before he is stripped OF his ONCE and deprived of
his property. II the President possesses the power
to remove him that power must at least profess to
be exercised within the terms OF the law.